Smeatza:The general public and mainstream society see men as expendable.When we're encouraging our male children to beat the crap out of each other for entertainment/achievement then it's kinda hard to ignore.

Warren Farrell has some interesting opinions on the subject.

Perhaps stuff like this is at least part of the reason that male suicide rates are astronomically higher than female suicide rates.

I don't think the bolded is right - attempts at suicide are much higher in women, pretty sure it's roughly double the rate at which men try to kill themselves. The difference is that more men actually kill themselves due to the methods used - women are more likely to poison or cut themselves, so there tends to be a greater likelihood that someone will find them and contact emergency services. Men tend to use methods that there's no coming back from - self inflicted gunshot or jumping from a high place.

Smeatza:The general public and mainstream society see men as expendable.When we're encouraging our male children to beat the crap out of each other for entertainment/achievement then it's kinda hard to ignore.

Warren Farrell has some interesting opinions on the subject.

Perhaps stuff like this is at least part of the reason that male suicide rates are astronomically higher than female suicide rates.

I don't think the bolded is right - attempts at suicide are much higher in women, pretty sure it's roughly double the rate at which men try to kill themselves. The difference is that more men actually kill themselves due to the methods used - women are more likely to poison or cut themselves, so there tends to be a greater likelihood that someone will find them and contact emergency services. Men tend to use methods that there's no coming back from - self inflicted gunshot or jumping from a high place.

Can you link me to the studies or statistics that support the part in bold? I have been unable to find anything.The only thing I could find that was anywhere close was they females were more likely to have suicidal thoughts, I can't seem to find any research that suggests women attempt suicide more than men.

first off, the infant mortality rate is higher for males because the immune response is sexually dimorphic. It should go without saying that women are at a far greater risk of dying while giving birth than men are.

I'm not sure how spending a disproportionate amount of public health-care and medical research money on men is supposed to be evidence of oppression. If anything that's a sign of male privilege.

There's some serious cherry picking going on with those murder rates. Yes, most murders are male-on-male. And yes, when women do commit murder, the victim is a man more often than not. But they conveniently leave out the fact that the male-on-female murder rate is three times that of female-on-male. Violence against women is predominantly perpetrated by men. Violence against men is also mostly perpetrated by men. Governments pay more attention to the problem of violence against women because women are far more often victims than they are offenders, though maybe they should be looking into making men less violent. men commit 9 times as many violent crimes as women do, and men are 9 times more likely to go to jail. Funny how that math works out.

Sigh. None of these claims are sourced at all and most of them are too vague to fact-check easily. But yeah, this is basically a bunch of cherry-picked conclusions stripped of context to make a bad-faith argument about the plight of men in Canada, with an ill-conceived dig at straw-feminists tossed in at the end to boot.

first off, the infant mortality rate is higher for males because the immune response is sexually dimorphic. It should go without saying that women are at a far greater risk of dying while giving birth than men are.

I'm not sure how spending a disproportionate amount of public health-care and medical research money on men is supposed to be evidence of oppression. If anything that's a sign of male privilege.

There's some serious cherry picking going on with those murder rates. Yes, most murders are male-on-male. And yes, when women do commit murder, the victim is a man more often than not. But they conveniently leave out the fact that the male-on-female murder rate is three times that of female-on-male. Violence against women is predominantly perpetrated by men. Violence against men is also mostly perpetrated by men. Governments pay more attention to the problem of violence against women because women are far more often victims than they are offenders, though maybe they should be looking into making men less violent. men commit 9 times as many violent crimes as women do, and men are 9 times more likely to go to jail. Funny how that math works out.

Sigh. None of these claims are sourced at all and most of them are too vague to fact-check easily. But yeah, this is basically a bunch of cherry-picked conclusions stripped of context to make a bad-faith argument about the plight of men in Canada, with an ill-conceived dig at straw-feminists tossed in at the end to boot.

You do know that there are more factors to consider than just one's gender in determining what makes one violent?So your statement, make men less violent, is just sexist.

Also you fail to source as well, outside of one link. Instead you fall back on hand waving what is said away saying,. "no sources, too hard to fact check,". And then cry out, "strawman!". Honestly you are going to contend that men are violent, prove it. If you think the video is wrong, prove it.

And if you can not see the inequality of government focus on the group has the lowest odds of being a victim while ignoring, or outright blaming, the group that is. Then something is wrong with you.

Smeatza:The general public and mainstream society see men as expendable.When we're encouraging our male children to beat the crap out of each other for entertainment/achievement then it's kinda hard to ignore.

Warren Farrell has some interesting opinions on the subject.

Perhaps stuff like this is at least part of the reason that male suicide rates are astronomically higher than female suicide rates.

I don't think the bolded is right - attempts at suicide are much higher in women, pretty sure it's roughly double the rate at which men try to kill themselves. The difference is that more men actually kill themselves due to the methods used - women are more likely to poison or cut themselves, so there tends to be a greater likelihood that someone will find them and contact emergency services. Men tend to use methods that there's no coming back from - self inflicted gunshot or jumping from a high place.

Can you link me to the studies or statistics that support the part in bold? I have been unable to find anything.The only thing I could find that was anywhere close was they females were more likely to have suicidal thoughts, I can't seem to find any research that suggests women attempt suicide more than men.

first off, the infant mortality rate is higher for males because the immune response is sexually dimorphic. It should go without saying that women are at a far greater risk of dying while giving birth than men are.

I'm not sure how spending a disproportionate amount of public health-care and medical research money on men is supposed to be evidence of oppression. If anything that's a sign of male privilege.

There's some serious cherry picking going on with those murder rates. Yes, most murders are male-on-male. And yes, when women do commit murder, the victim is a man more often than not. But they conveniently leave out the fact that the male-on-female murder rate is three times that of female-on-male. Violence against women is predominantly perpetrated by men. Violence against men is also mostly perpetrated by men. Governments pay more attention to the problem of violence against women because women are far more often victims than they are offenders, though maybe they should be looking into making men less violent. men commit 9 times as many violent crimes as women do, and men are 9 times more likely to go to jail. Funny how that math works out.

Sigh. None of these claims are sourced at all and most of them are too vague to fact-check easily. But yeah, this is basically a bunch of cherry-picked conclusions stripped of context to make a bad-faith argument about the plight of men in Canada, with an ill-conceived dig at straw-feminists tossed in at the end to boot.

first off, the infant mortality rate is higher for males because the immune response is sexually dimorphic. It should go without saying that women are at a far greater risk of dying while giving birth than men are.

I'm not sure how spending a disproportionate amount of public health-care and medical research money on men is supposed to be evidence of oppression. If anything that's a sign of male privilege.

There's some serious cherry picking going on with those murder rates. Yes, most murders are male-on-male. And yes, when women do commit murder, the victim is a man more often than not. But they conveniently leave out the fact that the male-on-female murder rate is three times that of female-on-male. Violence against women is predominantly perpetrated by men. Violence against men is also mostly perpetrated by men. Governments pay more attention to the problem of violence against women because women are far more often victims than they are offenders, though maybe they should be looking into making men less violent. men commit 9 times as many violent crimes as women do, and men are 9 times more likely to go to jail. Funny how that math works out.

Sigh. None of these claims are sourced at all and most of them are too vague to fact-check easily. But yeah, this is basically a bunch of cherry-picked conclusions stripped of context to make a bad-faith argument about the plight of men in Canada, with an ill-conceived dig at straw-feminists tossed in at the end to boot.

You do know that there are more factors to consider than just one's gender in determining what makes one violent?So your statement, make men less violent, is just sexist.

Also you fail to source as well, outside of one link. Instead you fall back on hand waving what is said away saying,. "no sources, too hard to fact check,". And then cry out, "strawman!". Honestly you are going to contend that men are violent, prove it. If you think the video is wrong, prove it.

And if you can not see the inequality of government focus on the group has the lowest odds of being a victim while ignoring, or outright blaming, the group that is. Then something is wrong with you.

Now taking that into consideration, and from my own experience, Yes, men are in fact more violent than women, however there is much more to consider than gender when determining what makes one violent, since anyone can be violent regardless of gender. Simply because one gender is more violent than another does not mean that gender is the cause of the violence, as the way society is structured in regards to gender roles and social pressures, external influence, or genetics have a heavy role in forming their personality and behavior and come as a result of those factors regardless of gender, I would not think gender would be the determining factor here.

Actually, if you're a woman the response is just as likely, if not more so, to be: "Well, if you hadn't been wearing that skirt..." "You were out a bit late," "You did kiss him so you can hardly blame him for wanting more," "Are you sure it was a proper rape or did you just change your mind?" etc. If you're an 11 year-old girl and you get gang-raped by 20 guys, the response is sometimes: "You drew them in like a spider with a web."

OK, more on-topic. There is a sexism still inherent in our society which can make men feel too ashamed to report abuse or rape, because men are expected to be macho and we still laugh at the idea of a guy "getting beat by a girl". This also means that there isn't as much of a support network for men who have suffered from domestic abuse.

However, I think that another reason that there are more shelters for battered women than for battered men is that male-on-female domestic violence is far more common than female-on-male.

Personally, I don't believe that shelters for sufferers of domestic violence should be gendered at all. I would prefer to see "battered persons" shelters to allow for intersectionality and also to acknowledge that anyone can be a victim of domestic violence.

Genderless shelters can never happen, and actually put the abused in harms way. Here at the battered womens shelter, we have electrified coiled barbed wire to keep out their attackers, as well as regular visit from law enforcement, and they still try ot get in to carry out their threats on the women in there. This is a very serious issue, and the only other alternative we have if it is too dangerous to keep them there is to get them into a safe house, which is much more difficult to do due to the limited resources and overwhelming demand for them. These situations are so volitile, you have to understand the seriousness of the issue. They pay hitmen to try and take out these women, EVEN while they are in the shelters. We have had situations where they paid women to pretend to be abused to attempt to gain access to the shelter to spy on their target. The sheer lack of victim protection in the US is the problem here. You cannot have men and women in the same shelter, not only could that put them in further danger, the women are often traumatized to the point they cannot even be around men for the immediate time being. Women often come in bloodied and beaten, or have just been released from the hospital and brought to us from there.

Are you opposed to men having their own shelters, though? Could be wrong, but even the woman who spearheaded the whole concept of battered women shelters wanted men to have their own safe havens as well....

Of course I am not opposed to having shelters for anyone in danger. In Post #66, I went over the reasons why I do not see it happening any time soon though. Funding is key issue as to why this hasn't happened yet. There isn't enough funding for the womens and children shelters currently and people tend to be even more less giving to mens causes than they are to women and children. That is also another issue when trying to help men in this situation. Due to the way society views men and how men "should handle their own problems" is why we don't see more assistance for men in these areas. We would first have to address how society views men in regard to being a victim or in need of help, before we can change these things for the better to have more people voluntarily donate to their causes. If we cannot get people to donate to their causes and assist them, they will never garner enough support to make this a reality.

chaosord:You do know that there are more factors to consider than just one's gender in determining what makes one violent?So your statement, make men less violent, is just sexist.

It's not just a fact on itself, it's in large part taught. Why is it that if something unexpected or violent happens, women in overwhelming majority just freeze, don't do anything to resolve the situation and scream, or in a few nutcases, go for weapons? Is it because women have a sort of freeze&scream hormone that men don't have?

Naah, it's because women are taught to be helpless, and taught myths like 'men are always stronger, so you can never get into any sort of physical confrontation and expect to win'.

chaosord:You do know that there are more factors to consider than just one's gender in determining what makes one violent?So your statement, make men less violent, is just sexist.

It's not just a fact on itself, it's in large part taught. Why is it that if something unexpected or violent happens, women in overwhelming majority just freeze, don't do anything to resolve the situation and scream, or in a few nutcases, go for weapons? Is it because women have a sort of freeze&scream hormone that men don't have?

Naah, it's because women are taught to be helpless, and taught myths like 'men are always stronger, so you can never get into any sort of physical confrontation and expect to win'.

I think your are a bit off Blah on the reason women often don't fight back. First, we are taught to run, scream, fight for your life when in danger. That is not the issue. The bigger issue is that women are raised to be nurturing, kind and gentle. From the beginning we play with baby dolls, learning to be nurturing, while at the same time, boys are playing with plastic swords. Girls are taught that violence isn't the way to resolve conflict. Instead, we are taught to reason and work things out, and take care of those around us. What happens often when women are attacked is they freeze because they don't know how to respond. They think " why does this person want to hurt me?" and try to reason with them. If it is someone they care about, they want to help them work through their problems and place the aggressor's needs above their own. That is entirely different than "being taught they can't win."

Women often don't know how to fight back, so they don't know how to respond in those situations. They don't automatically think " defend" when they should due to their upbringing that violence is not an appropriate reaction in most cases.

You see, often when girl punches someone in the nose, they feel embarassed, ashamed and regretful afterwards, thinking, " I wish that never happened, I don't want to hurt anyone" while boys often feel proud that they defended themselves and think " that guy had it coming". All of these things factor in to this when it comes down to someone defending themself.

chaosord:You do know that there are more factors to consider than just one's gender in determining what makes one violent?So your statement, make men less violent, is just sexist.

It's not just a fact on itself, it's in large part taught. Why is it that if something unexpected or violent happens, women in overwhelming majority just freeze, don't do anything to resolve the situation and scream, or in a few nutcases, go for weapons? Is it because women have a sort of freeze&scream hormone that men don't have?

Naah, it's because women are taught to be helpless, and taught myths like 'men are always stronger, so you can never get into any sort of physical confrontation and expect to win'.

I think your are a bit off Blah on the reason women often don't fight back. First, we are taught to run, scream, fight for your life when in danger. That is not the issue. The bigger issue is that women are raised to be nurturing, kind and gentle. From the beginning we play with baby dolls, learning to be nurturing, while at the same time, boys are playing with plastic swords. Girls are taught that violence isn't the way to resolve conflict. Instead, we are taught to reason and work things out, and take care of those around us. What happens often when women are attacked is they freeze because they don't know how to respond. They think " why does this person want to hurt me?" and try to reason with them. If it is someone they care about, they want to help them work through their problems and place the aggressor's needs above their own. That is entirely different than "being taught they can't win."

Women often don't know how to fight back, so they don't know how to respond in those situations. They don't automatically think " defend" when they should due to their upbringing that violence is not an appropriate reaction in most cases.

You see, often when girl punches someone in the nose, they feel embarassed, ashamed and regretful afterwards, thinking, " I wish that never happened, I don't want to hurt anyone" while boys often feel proud that they defended themselves and think " that guy had it coming". All of these things factor in to this when it comes down to someone defending themself.

Oh boy. Where to start with this one?

How about, male disposability and proxy violence.

Male disosablility, states that since women are the limiting factor in reproduction they are far more valued than men. That men are the ones who take the risks because they are easily replaced.

Proxy violence is getting someone else to do your hitting for you.

While contend they women are the "fairer" sex. I contend that instead of a woman fighting, she gets someone else to do it for her.

Also all the thoughts and things you brought up are not exclusive to one gender. Please stop trying to paint women with an untrue trope. And stop trying to do the same to men.

I don't think the bolded is right - attempts at suicide are much higher in women, pretty sure it's roughly double the rate at which men try to kill themselves. The difference is that more men actually kill themselves due to the methods used - women are more likely to poison or cut themselves, so there tends to be a greater likelihood that someone will find them and contact emergency services. Men tend to use methods that there's no coming back from - self inflicted gunshot or jumping from a high place.

Can you link me to the studies or statistics that support the part in bold? I have been unable to find anything.The only thing I could find that was anywhere close was they females were more likely to have suicidal thoughts, I can't seem to find any research that suggests women attempt suicide more than men.

I've read the source that wikipedia provides http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html#2005It unfortunately only provides one sentence "More females attempt suicide than males.(3 female attempts for each male attempt.)" with no source of course, and it doesn't even break down what it classifies as a suicide attempt.

The second link you gave is still not sourced but that even says "This behavior is not necessarily suicidal, in the sense of reflecting a wish to die" (referring to female suicide attempts).

What's even more interesting is later on where it says "In contexts where both men and women have easy access to lethal drugs and know how to use them, suicide rates are similar for men and women." Which certainly throws doubt on all our suggestions the suicide is skewed towards a particular gender.

While writing this post I did manage to find a scientific paper on the subjecthttp://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/177/6/484.full.pdf+htmlI've not had time to read it in full myself but a quick scan of the conclusion seems they suggest what I'm now thinking - there has simply not been enough scientific research put into this particular area.

Someone threatening to leave you if they don' get their way constantly isn't a form of abuse?

So threatening someone to keep them from leaving = abuse

But manipulating them through emotions in order to get your way = not abuse?

OK, I think it might be state-the-obvious time. No one is automatically entitled to sex or affection from another person, regardless of how long you've been together. "Threatening" someone with the end of a relationship is not emotional abuse. If that were the case then anyone who has ever ended a relationship would be an "abuser" because they hurt the other person's feelings.

There is a HUGE difference between threatening someone to keep them from leaving, and threatening to leave yourself.

Withholding sex or affection is not emotional abuse. I'm sorry, but it's not. Emotional abuse is more along the lines of deliberately using threats and insults to make someone feel worthless or victimised. That's not to say that a lot of people won't claim to have been "victimised" because the object of their affections refused to jump into bed with them, but those people are idiots.

This made me quit the thread, because it pissed me off and made me sick.

Someone manipulating someone elses emotions and thoughts in order to gain an advantage over them in some way is abuse. Period. And if they know that threatening to leave someone if they don't do X, they know the levers to pull to manipulate someone into doing something they'd rather not, then it's emotional abuse.

Believe it or not, there are people out there who really want to feel loved, and I'm not talking about sex, I'm talking about an emotional desire to feel worth and needed by another person. They can take physical abuse quite in stride, but attack them emotionally and they're crippled. Shit, country music is built on this sort of thing.

"Six foot six he stood on the ground, weighed two hundred and twenty five pounds; but I saw that giant of a man bought down to his knees by love."

But according to you, nope; nope, manipulating peoples emotions isn't abuse at all, it's all about sex and it must just be people whining because they can't get laid or something. Yeah, it's a self-esteem issue that tends to lead to this kind of abuse, but that doesn't make it 'not abuse' because no one threw a punch.

Blablahb:It's not just a fact on itself, it's in large part taught. Why is it that if something unexpected or violent happens, women in overwhelming majority just freeze, don't do anything to resolve the situation and scream, or in a few nutcases, go for weapons? Is it because women have a sort of freeze&scream hormone that men don't have?

Naah, it's because women are taught to be helpless, and taught myths like 'men are always stronger, so you can never get into any sort of physical confrontation and expect to win'.

I think your are a bit off Blah on the reason women often don't fight back. First, we are taught to run, scream, fight for your life when in danger. That is not the issue. The bigger issue is that women are raised to be nurturing, kind and gentle. From the beginning we play with baby dolls, learning to be nurturing, while at the same time, boys are playing with plastic swords. Girls are taught that violence isn't the way to resolve conflict. Instead, we are taught to reason and work things out, and take care of those around us. What happens often when women are attacked is they freeze because they don't know how to respond. They think " why does this person want to hurt me?" and try to reason with them. If it is someone they care about, they want to help them work through their problems and place the aggressor's needs above their own. That is entirely different than "being taught they can't win."

Women often don't know how to fight back, so they don't know how to respond in those situations. They don't automatically think " defend" when they should due to their upbringing that violence is not an appropriate reaction in most cases.

You see, often when girl punches someone in the nose, they feel embarassed, ashamed and regretful afterwards, thinking, " I wish that never happened, I don't want to hurt anyone" while boys often feel proud that they defended themselves and think " that guy had it coming". All of these things factor in to this when it comes down to someone defending themself.

Oh boy. Where to start with this one?

How about, male disposability and proxy violence.

Male disosablility, states that since women are the limiting factor in reproduction they are far more valued than men. That men are the ones who take the risks because they are easily replaced.

Proxy violence is getting someone else to do your hitting for you.

While contend they women are the "fairer" sex. I contend that instead of a woman fighting, she gets someone else to do it for her.

Also all the thoughts and things you brought up are not exclusive to one gender. Please stop trying to paint women with an untrue trope. And stop trying to do the same to men.

Where to start? At the toy stores. Everyone knows the pink baby and barbie doll isles are for girls, whereas the tanks, guns, and swords isles are for boys. Yes, it does actually start there. How many boys do you know that receive baby dolls as presents as a child? The only ones that usually even see a baby doll in their home as a child are ones who have sisters. Some women do fight back, some men do not. I was not claiming this was "gender specific" but rather that it is a social construct. Most women do NOT get someone else to fight for them, many women do not even fight back at all, and actually try to hide the fact they were abused. Many women that are abused try to hide their abuse from everyone, including family and friends, and do not press charges against their attackers, or have someone come after them. We are discussing why women often freeze up and do not fight back at all here, not about how some women, may then go get someone to beat up the guy, most women do not even do that to begin with, and many of the women who do, also fought back or even started the violence in the first place. That was not what was being discussed here.

Often when a woman is attacked, they do not respond to defend themselves at ALL. That was what was being addressed here. Many are not fighting back because they honestly do not know how to respond to such things. Yes we have our fathers tell us to " kick or punch the guys in the balls if they do this.." but when the situation comes, most have never practiced such things and don't have a clue what to do in the actual situation, nor is to defend themselves their go to response, because they simply never have. Their go to response is to try to understand why the person is trying to harm them, because that is what they have been taught by society as to how to handle conflict.

Someone threatening to leave you if they don' get their way constantly isn't a form of abuse?

So threatening someone to keep them from leaving = abuse

But manipulating them through emotions in order to get your way = not abuse?

OK, I think it might be state-the-obvious time. No one is automatically entitled to sex or affection from another person, regardless of how long you've been together. "Threatening" someone with the end of a relationship is not emotional abuse. If that were the case then anyone who has ever ended a relationship would be an "abuser" because they hurt the other person's feelings.

There is a HUGE difference between threatening someone to keep them from leaving, and threatening to leave yourself.

Withholding sex or affection is not emotional abuse. I'm sorry, but it's not. Emotional abuse is more along the lines of deliberately using threats and insults to make someone feel worthless or victimised. That's not to say that a lot of people won't claim to have been "victimised" because the object of their affections refused to jump into bed with them, but those people are idiots.

This made me quit the thread, because it pissed me off and made me sick.

Someone manipulating someone elses emotions and thoughts in order to gain an advantage over them in some way is abuse. Period. And if they know that threatening to leave someone if they don't do X, they know the levers to pull to manipulate someone into doing something they'd rather not, then it's emotional abuse.

Believe it or not, there are people out there who really want to feel loved, and I'm not talking about sex, I'm talking about an emotional desire to feel worth and needed by another person. They can take physical abuse quite in stride, but attack them emotionally and they're crippled. Shit, country music is built on this sort of thing.

"Six foot six he stood on the ground, weighed two hundred and twenty five pounds; but I saw that giant of a man bought down to his knees by love."

But according to you, nope; nope, manipulating peoples emotions isn't abuse at all, it's all about sex and it must just be people whining because they can't get laid or something. Yeah, it's a self-esteem issue that tends to lead to this kind of abuse, but that doesn't make it 'not abuse' because no one threw a punch.

It's unbelievably disgusting to me, your attitude.

I think you misunderstand what is and is not abuse. Yes, people want to be loved, that does not " entitle" them to be loved. Trying to force another to do anything, including love another is abuse, while not loving someone and leaving is not. I do not think you understand what is and is not abuse. You have to consider that the person who is having the emotions have responsiblity for their own emotions as well here, and those should not be projected onto others as to who to blame for having them. It is only when someone attempts to force another that abuse can take place. You view " leaving and lonliness" as an abusive threat, while that is not, that is what would be the appropriate response to an unhappy relationship. When one party is not happy in a relationship, they leave, that is the proper thing to do. Now if upon their leaving they damaged property or person of the other, or threatened harm to the other that would be abusive, but that was not what was being discussed here. Them leaving or stating they are leaving is not abuse. You fail to understand that is what is taught as "the appropriate course of action" regardless of gender.

I think your are a bit off Blah on the reason women often don't fight back. First, we are taught to run, scream, fight for your life when in danger. That is not the issue. The bigger issue is that women are raised to be nurturing, kind and gentle. From the beginning we play with baby dolls, learning to be nurturing, while at the same time, boys are playing with plastic swords. Girls are taught that violence isn't the way to resolve conflict. Instead, we are taught to reason and work things out, and take care of those around us. What happens often when women are attacked is they freeze because they don't know how to respond. They think " why does this person want to hurt me?" and try to reason with them. If it is someone they care about, they want to help them work through their problems and place the aggressor's needs above their own. That is entirely different than "being taught they can't win."

Women often don't know how to fight back, so they don't know how to respond in those situations. They don't automatically think " defend" when they should due to their upbringing that violence is not an appropriate reaction in most cases.

You see, often when girl punches someone in the nose, they feel embarassed, ashamed and regretful afterwards, thinking, " I wish that never happened, I don't want to hurt anyone" while boys often feel proud that they defended themselves and think " that guy had it coming". All of these things factor in to this when it comes down to someone defending themself.

Oh boy. Where to start with this one?

How about, male disposability and proxy violence.

Male disosablility, states that since women are the limiting factor in reproduction they are far more valued than men. That men are the ones who take the risks because they are easily replaced.

Proxy violence is getting someone else to do your hitting for you.

While contend they women are the "fairer" sex. I contend that instead of a woman fighting, she gets someone else to do it for her.

Also all the thoughts and things you brought up are not exclusive to one gender. Please stop trying to paint women with an untrue trope. And stop trying to do the same to men.

Where to start? At the toy stores. Everyone knows the pink baby and barbie doll isles are for girls, whereas the tanks, guns, and swords isles are for boys. Yes, it does actually start there. How many boys do you know that receive baby dolls as presents as a child? The only ones that usually even see a baby doll in their home as a child are ones who have sisters. Some women do fight back, some men do not. I was not claiming this was "gender specific" but rather that it is a social construct. Most women do NOT get someone else to fight for them, many women do not even fight back at all, and actually try to hide the fact they were abused. Many women that are abused try to hide their abuse from everyone, including family and friends, and do not press charges against their attackers, or have someone come after them. We are discussing why women often freeze up and do not fight back at all here, not about how some women, may then go get someone to beat up the guy, most women do not even do that to begin with, and many of the women who do, also fought back or even started the violence in the first place. That was not what was being discussed here.

Often when a woman is attacked, they do not respond to defend themselves at ALL. That was what was being addressed here. Many are not fighting back because they honestly do not know how to respond to such things. Yes we have our fathers tell us to " kick or punch the guys in the balls if they do this.." but when the situation comes, most have never practiced such things and don't have a clue what to do in the actual situation, nor is to defend themselves their go to response, because they simply never have. Their go to response is to try to understand why the person is trying to harm them, because that is what they have been taught by society as to how to handle conflict.

Ah the good old, "Poor woman. So pure." trope bs.

I going to ask that you prove it. Prove that women, as a whole, are just stupid sheep incapable of self-preservation. Because is what you are claiming. And then saying its men's fault and they need to be fixed.

Male disosablility, states that since women are the limiting factor in reproduction they are far more valued than men. That men are the ones who take the risks because they are easily replaced.

Proxy violence is getting someone else to do your hitting for you.

While contend they women are the "fairer" sex. I contend that instead of a woman fighting, she gets someone else to do it for her.

Also all the thoughts and things you brought up are not exclusive to one gender. Please stop trying to paint women with an untrue trope. And stop trying to do the same to men.

Where to start? At the toy stores. Everyone knows the pink baby and barbie doll isles are for girls, whereas the tanks, guns, and swords isles are for boys. Yes, it does actually start there. How many boys do you know that receive baby dolls as presents as a child? The only ones that usually even see a baby doll in their home as a child are ones who have sisters. Some women do fight back, some men do not. I was not claiming this was "gender specific" but rather that it is a social construct. Most women do NOT get someone else to fight for them, many women do not even fight back at all, and actually try to hide the fact they were abused. Many women that are abused try to hide their abuse from everyone, including family and friends, and do not press charges against their attackers, or have someone come after them. We are discussing why women often freeze up and do not fight back at all here, not about how some women, may then go get someone to beat up the guy, most women do not even do that to begin with, and many of the women who do, also fought back or even started the violence in the first place. That was not what was being discussed here.

Often when a woman is attacked, they do not respond to defend themselves at ALL. That was what was being addressed here. Many are not fighting back because they honestly do not know how to respond to such things. Yes we have our fathers tell us to " kick or punch the guys in the balls if they do this.." but when the situation comes, most have never practiced such things and don't have a clue what to do in the actual situation, nor is to defend themselves their go to response, because they simply never have. Their go to response is to try to understand why the person is trying to harm them, because that is what they have been taught by society as to how to handle conflict.

Ah the good old, "Poor woman. So pure." trope bs.

I going to ask that you prove it. Prove that women, as a whole, are just stupid sheep incapable of self-preservation. Because is what you are claiming. And then saying its men's fault and they need to be fixed.

First of all, how is a female being raised to see violence as a bad thing somehow " stupid sheep who are incapable of self preservation?" That is not the same thing to feel remorse or guilt for giving into anger and violence. Women are taught that giving to violence is giving into weakness. As a society, yes girls are taught that it is " not ladylike" to behave like that, so for the most part, they do not. They are conditioned to see " violence" as beneath them, and to not succumb to it. While men often view winning a fist fight with another man as brave and courageous, and respected as" standing their ground" and exhalted by other males. There is a huge difference in how women view other women for violence, and how men view other men. That is at the core here.

You keep focusing on the exception to the rule rather than the rule. Yes, women can be violent killers, just the numbers show that doesn't happen as freqently as men becoming violent killers. I do not attribute this to gender however, I attribute this to social conditioning. Your " little tidbit" is just that, a " little" when you view the overall numbers of people actually doing these things. It is the rare execption, not the rule.

Women do not view it as " weak poor women" to not partake in the violence, instead it is viewed as "we are strong enough to take it, so we must instead care for those around us and help them." Women often " take" the violence from their loved one because they think they can help them stop their actions. There is a huge difference between that and " being helpless." Women are often taught that it takes more courage and strength to be hit and not hit back, than it does to fight, and that we cannot put an end to violence by participating in it.

Yes, the statistics show that men are far more violent than women, however, I do not believe that is due to actual gender.

first off, the infant mortality rate is higher for males because the immune response is sexually dimorphic. It should go without saying that women are at a far greater risk of dying while giving birth than men are.

I'm not sure how spending a disproportionate amount of public health-care and medical research money on men is supposed to be evidence of oppression. If anything that's a sign of male privilege.

There's some serious cherry picking going on with those murder rates. Yes, most murders are male-on-male. And yes, when women do commit murder, the victim is a man more often than not. But they conveniently leave out the fact that the male-on-female murder rate is three times that of female-on-male. Violence against women is predominantly perpetrated by men. Violence against men is also mostly perpetrated by men. Governments pay more attention to the problem of violence against women because women are far more often victims than they are offenders, though maybe they should be looking into making men less violent. men commit 9 times as many violent crimes as women do, and men are 9 times more likely to go to jail. Funny how that math works out.

Sigh. None of these claims are sourced at all and most of them are too vague to fact-check easily. But yeah, this is basically a bunch of cherry-picked conclusions stripped of context to make a bad-faith argument about the plight of men in Canada, with an ill-conceived dig at straw-feminists tossed in at the end to boot.

first off, the infant mortality rate is higher for males because the immune response is sexually dimorphic. It should go without saying that women are at a far greater risk of dying while giving birth than men are.

I'm not sure how spending a disproportionate amount of public health-care and medical research money on men is supposed to be evidence of oppression. If anything that's a sign of male privilege.

There's some serious cherry picking going on with those murder rates. Yes, most murders are male-on-male. And yes, when women do commit murder, the victim is a man more often than not. But they conveniently leave out the fact that the male-on-female murder rate is three times that of female-on-male. Violence against women is predominantly perpetrated by men. Violence against men is also mostly perpetrated by men. Governments pay more attention to the problem of violence against women because women are far more often victims than they are offenders, though maybe they should be looking into making men less violent. men commit 9 times as many violent crimes as women do, and men are 9 times more likely to go to jail. Funny how that math works out.

Sigh. None of these claims are sourced at all and most of them are too vague to fact-check easily. But yeah, this is basically a bunch of cherry-picked conclusions stripped of context to make a bad-faith argument about the plight of men in Canada, with an ill-conceived dig at straw-feminists tossed in at the end to boot.

You do know that there are more factors to consider than just one's gender in determining what makes one violent?So your statement, make men less violent, is just sexist.

Also you fail to source as well, outside of one link. Instead you fall back on hand waving what is said away saying,. "no sources, too hard to fact check,". And then cry out, "strawman!". Honestly you are going to contend that men are violent, prove it. If you think the video is wrong, prove it.

And if you can not see the inequality of government focus on the group has the lowest odds of being a victim while ignoring, or outright blaming, the group that is. Then something is wrong with you.

Now taking that into consideration, and from my own experience, Yes, men are in fact more violent than women, however there is much more to consider than gender when determining what makes one violent, since anyone can be violent regardless of gender. Simply because one gender is more violent than another does not mean that gender is the cause of the violence, as the way society is structured in regards to gender roles and social pressures, external influence, or genetics have a heavy role in forming their personality and behavior and come as a result of those factors regardless of gender, I would not think gender would be the determining factor here.

"Scientists have for a long time been interested in the relationship between testosterone and aggressive behavior. In most species, males are more aggressive than females. Castration of males usually has a pacifying effect on aggressive behavior in males. In humans, males engage in crime and especially violent crime more than females. The involvement in crime usually rises in the early teens to mid teens which happen at the same time as testosterone levels rise. Research on the relationship between testosterone and aggression is difficult since the only reliable measurement of brain testosterone is by a lumbar puncture which is not done for research purposes. Studies therefore have often instead used more unreliable measurements from blood or saliva."

Interesting how the only way to know is a lumbar puncture which we don't all will nilly.

"Many studies have also been done on the relationship between more general aggressive behavior/feelings and testosterone. About half the studies have found a relationship and about half no relationship."Handbook of Crime Correlates; Lee Ellis, Kevin M. Beaver, John Wright; 2009; Academic Press

You do know that there are more factors to consider than just one's gender in determining what makes one violent?So your statement, make men less violent, is just sexist.

Also you fail to source as well, outside of one link. Instead you fall back on hand waving what is said away saying,. "no sources, too hard to fact check,". And then cry out, "strawman!". Honestly you are going to contend that men are violent, prove it. If you think the video is wrong, prove it.

And if you can not see the inequality of government focus on the group has the lowest odds of being a victim while ignoring, or outright blaming, the group that is. Then something is wrong with you.

Now taking that into consideration, and from my own experience, Yes, men are in fact more violent than women, however there is much more to consider than gender when determining what makes one violent, since anyone can be violent regardless of gender. Simply because one gender is more violent than another does not mean that gender is the cause of the violence, as the way society is structured in regards to gender roles and social pressures, external influence, or genetics have a heavy role in forming their personality and behavior and come as a result of those factors regardless of gender, I would not think gender would be the determining factor here.

"Scientists have for a long time been interested in the relationship between testosterone and aggressive behavior. In most species, males are more aggressive than females. Castration of males usually has a pacifying effect on aggressive behavior in males. In humans, males engage in crime and especially violent crime more than females. The involvement in crime usually rises in the early teens to mid teens which happen at the same time as testosterone levels rise. Research on the relationship between testosterone and aggression is difficult since the only reliable measurement of brain testosterone is by a lumbar puncture which is not done for research purposes. Studies therefore have often instead used more unreliable measurements from blood or saliva."

Interesting how the only way to know is a lumbar puncture which we don't all will nilly.

"Many studies have also been done on the relationship between more general aggressive behavior/feelings and testosterone. About half the studies have found a relationship and about half no relationship."Handbook of Crime Correlates; Lee Ellis, Kevin M. Beaver, John Wright; 2009; Academic Press

Yes, Males do have the issue of testosterone, (and females to a lesser extent) but you cannot discount learned behaviors and how to positively/ negatively handle anger/ violent tendencies. I do not assume that men are unable learn better ways to deal with things simply because they have testosterone. I do not view the testosterone issue as "an excuse" for violence, as there are many men with very high testosterone levels that do not act out violently. In regards to acting out with violence, I feel learned behaviors are far more a factor in determining how they handle those situations than the just the hormonal factors. When in society you endorse violence as being an acceptable reaction for a certain group, you should expect that group to react with more violence. It is a factor, but not what I would conisider the "determining factor", when you look at persons with greatly varying testosterone levels, male and female, that react with violence vs the majority of the population with persons with the same levels that do not, you will find that learned behaviors far outweigh the hormonal factors.

Excessively high testosterone can cause emotional and physical issues, but the learned behaviors on how to properly handle emotions, and being taught positive outlets and how to react in a manner which society finds acceptable, and not harmful to yourself and others plays a heavy role in this as well.

In regards to suicide, more women than men actually attempt suicide, not just have more thoughts of suicide ( 3 female per male) however, more men die from suicide than women due to their methods used.

"Brain's serotonin system differs between men and womenScientists from the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, showed that the brain's serotonin systems in males and females are different. They think they might have found one of the reasons why more women are affected with depression and chronic anxiety than men.

By using a PET scanner, the scientists found that in terms of the number of binding sites for certain parts of the brain, the two sexes are not the same.

They found that females have more of the most common serotonin receptors than men, and lower levels of the protein that carries serotonin back into the nerve cells that secrete serotonin. SSRI antidepressants block this protein."

It has previously been difficult to obtain official international data on sex differences inthe prevalence of suicide attempts. However, since 1989, 16 centers in 13 European cities havebeen collecting data about suicide attempts. Each center used a common instrument for datacollection and a common definition of nonfatal suicidal behavior. Specifically, "parasuicide" wasdefined as "an act with a nonfatal outcome, in which an individual deliberately initiates a nonhabitualbehavior that, without intervention from others, will cause self-harm, or deliberatelyingests a substance in excess of the prescribed or generally recognized therapeutic dosage, andwhich is aimed at realizing changes which the subject desired via the actual or expected physicalconsequences." This definition comes from the ICD-10.Using data from these sites, international sex differences in rates of suicide attempts weresummarized by Schmidtke (1997). In every site but one (Helsinki), more women than menattempted suicide. Overall, pooling across sites, the male-to-female sex ratio for attempts was .76for the monitoring study and .60 for the follow-up WHO multi-center interview study (Bille-Brahe et al., 1997). Surprisingly, however, this sex difference in suicide attempts was notreplicated using a random-digit telephone survey with United States adults (Crosby et al., 1999).Sex differences in suicide attempt rates have been found in United States adolescents(Lewinsohn et al., 1996; Roberts et al., 1997).

Emphasises... emphases... empha-?... mine.So for every woman who attempted suicide, only 0.6 to 0.76 men tried.

"Scientists have for a long time been interested in the relationship between testosterone and aggressive behavior. In most species, males are more aggressive than females. Castration of males usually has a pacifying effect on aggressive behavior in males. In humans, males engage in crime and especially violent crime more than females. The involvement in crime usually rises in the early teens to mid teens which happen at the same time as testosterone levels rise. Research on the relationship between testosterone and aggression is difficult since the only reliable measurement of brain testosterone is by a lumbar puncture which is not done for research purposes. Studies therefore have often instead used more unreliable measurements from blood or saliva."

Interesting how the only way to know is a lumbar puncture which we don't all will nilly.

"Many studies have also been done on the relationship between more general aggressive behavior/feelings and testosterone. About half the studies have found a relationship and about half no relationship."Handbook of Crime Correlates; Lee Ellis, Kevin M. Beaver, John Wright; 2009; Academic Press

It is ok most people are wrong.

So it is a 50/50 toss up whatever or not testosterone really promotes violent behavior? Or more likely, the scientific community is still trying to come to an agreement on the issue.

Something that's important to realize is that violent and aggressive behavior stimulates the production of testosterone in both men and women. Just like intimacy and physical contact stimulates the production of oxytocin, which makes us less aggressive and more relaxed. There are also studies that shows that men who live with children (and particularly sleep in the same room or even same bed as infants) have lower levels of testosterone than men who doesn't live with children. All in all, it should be said that even if men have an innately higher level of testosterone than women, that's not the same as saying that men are innately more aggressive than women. High levels of testosterone correlating with aggression also raises the question which came first, the aggression or the testosterone?

Where to start? At the toy stores. Everyone knows the pink baby and barbie doll isles are for girls, whereas the tanks, guns, and swords isles are for boys. Yes, it does actually start there. How many boys do you know that receive baby dolls as presents as a child? The only ones that usually even see a baby doll in their home as a child are ones who have sisters. Some women do fight back, some men do not. I was not claiming this was "gender specific" but rather that it is a social construct. Most women do NOT get someone else to fight for them, many women do not even fight back at all, and actually try to hide the fact they were abused. Many women that are abused try to hide their abuse from everyone, including family and friends, and do not press charges against their attackers, or have someone come after them. We are discussing why women often freeze up and do not fight back at all here, not about how some women, may then go get someone to beat up the guy, most women do not even do that to begin with, and many of the women who do, also fought back or even started the violence in the first place. That was not what was being discussed here.

Often when a woman is attacked, they do not respond to defend themselves at ALL. That was what was being addressed here. Many are not fighting back because they honestly do not know how to respond to such things. Yes we have our fathers tell us to " kick or punch the guys in the balls if they do this.." but when the situation comes, most have never practiced such things and don't have a clue what to do in the actual situation, nor is to defend themselves their go to response, because they simply never have. Their go to response is to try to understand why the person is trying to harm them, because that is what they have been taught by society as to how to handle conflict.

Ah the good old, "Poor woman. So pure." trope bs.

I going to ask that you prove it. Prove that women, as a whole, are just stupid sheep incapable of self-preservation. Because is what you are claiming. And then saying its men's fault and they need to be fixed.

First of all, how is a female being raised to see violence as a bad thing somehow " stupid sheep who are incapable of self preservation?" That is not the same thing to feel remorse or guilt for giving into anger and violence. Women are taught that giving to violence is giving into weakness. As a society, yes girls are taught that it is " not ladylike" to behave like that, so for the most part, they do not. They are conditioned to see " violence" as beneath them, and to not succumb to it. While men often view winning a fist fight with another man as brave and courageous, and respected as" standing their ground" and exhalted by other males. There is a huge difference in how women view other women for violence, and how men view other men. That is at the core here.

You keep focusing on the exception to the rule rather than the rule. Yes, women can be violent killers, just the numbers show that doesn't happen as freqently as men becoming violent killers. I do not attribute this to gender however, I attribute this to social conditioning. Your " little tidbit" is just that, a " little" when you view the overall numbers of people actually doing these things. It is the rare execption, not the rule.

Women do not view it as " weak poor women" to not partake in the violence, instead it is viewed as "we are strong enough to take it, so we must instead care for those around us and help them." Women often " take" the violence from their loved one because they think they can help them stop their actions. There is a huge difference between that and " being helpless." Women are often taught that it takes more courage and strength to be hit and not hit back, than it does to fight, and that we cannot put an end to violence by participating in it.

Yes, the statistics show that men are far more violent than women, however, I do not believe that is due to actual gender.

My main issue with the whole thing is how it fails to consider any other factors outside of gender. Its the same with the pay-gap.

Every single time you say, "Women are less violent than men." you reinforce a trope that makes it so that women get away with more crime and get lighter sentences than men do. Simply because they are women. You stop treating them like adults.

And can you please stop over-generalizing? What you are saying about the genders is only true on a very limited scale, and what each gender is taught is not limited to that gender. It is going to vary greatly from culture to culture, and family to family.

I going to ask that you prove it. Prove that women, as a whole, are just stupid sheep incapable of self-preservation. Because is what you are claiming. And then saying its men's fault and they need to be fixed.

First of all, how is a female being raised to see violence as a bad thing somehow " stupid sheep who are incapable of self preservation?" That is not the same thing to feel remorse or guilt for giving into anger and violence. Women are taught that giving to violence is giving into weakness. As a society, yes girls are taught that it is " not ladylike" to behave like that, so for the most part, they do not. They are conditioned to see " violence" as beneath them, and to not succumb to it. While men often view winning a fist fight with another man as brave and courageous, and respected as" standing their ground" and exhalted by other males. There is a huge difference in how women view other women for violence, and how men view other men. That is at the core here.

You keep focusing on the exception to the rule rather than the rule. Yes, women can be violent killers, just the numbers show that doesn't happen as freqently as men becoming violent killers. I do not attribute this to gender however, I attribute this to social conditioning. Your " little tidbit" is just that, a " little" when you view the overall numbers of people actually doing these things. It is the rare execption, not the rule.

Women do not view it as " weak poor women" to not partake in the violence, instead it is viewed as "we are strong enough to take it, so we must instead care for those around us and help them." Women often " take" the violence from their loved one because they think they can help them stop their actions. There is a huge difference between that and " being helpless." Women are often taught that it takes more courage and strength to be hit and not hit back, than it does to fight, and that we cannot put an end to violence by participating in it.

Yes, the statistics show that men are far more violent than women, however, I do not believe that is due to actual gender.

My main issue with the whole thing is how it fails to consider any other factors outside of gender. Its the same with the pay-gap.

Every single time you say, "Women are less violent than men." you reinforce a trope that makes it so that women get away with more crime and get lighter sentences than men do. Simply because they are women. You stop treating them like adults.

And can you please stop over-generalizing? What you are saying about the genders is only true on a very limited scale, and what each gender is taught is not limited to that gender. It is going to vary greatly from culture to culture, and family to family.

First, you should understand that " gender roles" and actual gender are two separate issues and they both are a factor. It would be shortsighted to dismiss gender or gender roles as a contributing factor when you have one gender much more prone to comitting acts of violence than another. I disagree that stating the fact that " women are less violent than men" is enforcing the idea that each should not be held equally accountable for their actions, if anything that would be a possible indicator that women should be held more accountable, since obviously less women do these things in the first place, thus they appear to have more control over these things than men. I disagree that you stop treating them like adults when you state the facts on the issue, and feel that has more to do with your own view of these things rather than the actual content being discussed.

These things would not be separated this way if it were not widely accepted. Notice how the majority of toys offered for boys of the same age are much more violent in nature. Wrestling, Super heros who are exhalted for their fighting abilities, weapons ect. That entire section is filled with toys that exhalt fighting prowesss. Notice how those are completely nonexistent in the girls section? That is all a part of the social conditioning that takes place that aid men and women form who they are when they mature. Yes, these things are factors, and should be addressed. The acceptance of boys and violence and the lack of acceptance of girls and violence are contributing factors as to why these things are the way they are.

Yes, I am aware of different cultures and many of their traditions, however, I was addressing "modern western culture" in general.

Seriously, there's a case to be made here, but next time link to the article and phrase it yourself, that way I don't have to associate your opinions with those of morons.

I mean come on, government statistics are more "objective" even when describing something completely unrelated. The majority of male-perpetrated child maltreatment is carried out by stepfathers because of stuff and.. you know.. family values.

This shit is bad, and it poisons your argument by association. Don't do it if you want to convince anyone.

What you've discovered, primarily, is that women still perform the majority of childcare. Contrary to popular opinion, the majority of child abuse (and certainly child neglect, which forms the majority of those "child maltreatment" statistics and the majority of cases which end in fatality) takes place within the context of childrearing. It's very rare that people are actively sadistic towards children, it's far more likely that they're just bad parents or don't know how to deal with their children properly. There is a very thin line between physically disciplining a child and physical abusing them, and many parents cross that line without meaning to. It should not come as a surprise than wherein one person is expected to spend almost all their time caring for children, they are going to end up being the person more likely to fail in this fashion.

You've mistaken a simple statement that "women are less violent" for an intrinsic statement which applies in all cases. It's not. Women are less violent because violence is generally considered less acceptable for them, with one of the exceptions being (traditionally) in the case of disciplining children. Thus, it should come as no surprise that women are capable of violence towards children. This doesn't equate to any kind of general equivalence.

chaosord:What you are saying about the genders is only true on a very limited scale, and what each gender is taught is not limited to that gender. It is going to vary greatly from culture to culture, and family to family.

Yet the basic fact that men are responsible for the overwhelming majority of violence remains true, almost without exception, within each individual sphere of comparison.

Why is it so frightening to admit this? What do you imagine it suggests that is so bad and terrible?

We seem to have taken it as self-evident that men are more aggressive than women. Why?

Bear in mind, aggression is not violence. In fact, any behaviour with the intention of either harming or putting down someone else or asserting one's own social superiority can be classed as aggression.

There are people out there who constantly attack, belittle and hurt other people and yet who would never consider using physical violence against them, because the aggressive impulse can be satisfied in more socially acceptable ways. In fact, that's the key point here. How people express aggression is motivated very much by what they consider acceptable. A traditional working class guy who sees nothing wrong with getting into the odd fist fight with those who ask for it is expressing aggression in a socially acceptable fashion. The "office psychopath" who ruthlessly lords it over his or her subordinates in the working environment has found the perfect arena to socially express aggression. The high school mean girl who systematically undermines her "friends" in order to raise her own social profile is hiding her aggression behind a socially acceptable code of behaviour.

And yes, there are a few people who cross the line. There are a few people who display inappropriate aggression, but they're not generally displaying inappropriate levels of aggression so much as they're expressing it in the wrong way, and for whatever reason, men seem to do this far more often than women in most cases.

The point is, how we express aggression is very much a product of our environment. Sure, if you're only looking for physical violence, you're going to come to the conclusion that men are more aggressive than women, but if we start to look at aggression as a thing which can be expressed in a whole range of ways, it becomes much more complicated and we definitely start to see a lot more aggression coming from women.

The issue for me here is not "why are men more aggressive than women". We don't have a whole lot of evidence than they are. The real question is "why are men so much more likely express aggression through physical violence", and the answer, I believe, must surely lie to an extent in the social acceptance of male violence as a healthy and normal response, or the "boys will be boys" effect. If we treated violence in boys as pathologically as we do in girls, then it's likely that boys would learn to express aggression differently..

It's not that easy, however. For whatever reason, even wherein men are deeply concerned about the negative consequences of their own sex role (and one day, I'm going to explain why I hate that term), they are very rarely willing to make any commitment towards "unlearning" their own attitudes towards violence. We've seen examples in this very thread of the avoidance of violence being decried as "weak", "passive" and "childlike", words which have all been applied at one time or another in arguments about the congenital inferiority of women.

Perhaps this is why it's easier to project all the problems of being male onto something as abstract as a "role", or worse onto the destructive, hidden influence of women and their less recognizable forms of aggression. The sad fact is, however, that men are not violent to defend themselves from women. Men are not violent to defend themselves from the responsibilities of being a "real man". Men are violent because it is still rewarding to be violent, and because rejecting violence, admitting that you yourself were vulnerable to it, would have serious implications for how you were socially gendered. Specifically, you would be "feminized", equivalent to female, with all the harmful associations that carries.

In a gender-equal society, being feminized would not be a bad thing. In our society, it is.

Seriously, there's a case to be made here, but next time link to the article and phrase it yourself, that way I don't have to associate your opinions with those of morons.

I mean come on, government statistics are more "objective" even when describing something completely unrelated. The majority of male-perpetrated child maltreatment is carried out by stepfathers because of stuff and.. you know.. family values.

This shit is bad, and it poisons your argument by association. Don't do it if you want to convince anyone.

What you've discovered, primarily, is that women still perform the majority of childcare. Contrary to popular opinion, the majority of child abuse (and certainly child neglect, which forms the majority of those "child maltreatment" statistics and the majority of cases which end in fatality) takes place within the context of childrearing. It's very rare that people are actively sadistic towards children, it's far more likely that they're just bad parents or don't know how to deal with their children properly. There is a very thin line between physically disciplining a child and physical abusing them, and many parents cross that line without meaning to. It should not come as a surprise than wherein one person is expected to spend almost all their time caring for children, they are going to end up being the person more likely to fail in this fashion.

You've mistaken a simple statement that "women are less violent" for an intrinsic statement which applies in all cases. It's not. Women are less violent because violence is generally considered less acceptable for them, with one of the exceptions being (traditionally) in the case of disciplining children. Thus, it should come as no surprise that women are capable of violence towards children. This doesn't equate to any kind of general equivalence.

chaosord:What you are saying about the genders is only true on a very limited scale, and what each gender is taught is not limited to that gender. It is going to vary greatly from culture to culture, and family to family.

Yet the basic fact that men are responsible for the overwhelming majority of violence remains true, almost without exception, within each individual sphere of comparison.

Why is it so frightening to admit this? What do you imagine it suggests that is so bad and terrible?

We seem to have taken it as self-evident that men are more aggressive than women. Why?

Bear in mind, aggression is not violence. In fact, any behaviour with the intention of either harming or putting down someone else or asserting one's own social superiority can be classed as aggression.

There are people out there who constantly attack, belittle and hurt other people and yet who would never consider using physical violence against them, because the aggressive impulse can be satisfied in more socially acceptable ways. In fact, that's the key point here. How people express aggression is motivated very much by what they consider acceptable. A traditional working class guy who sees nothing wrong with getting into the odd fist fight with those who ask for it is expressing aggression in a socially acceptable fashion. The "office psychopath" who ruthlessly lords it over his or her subordinates in the working environment has found the perfect arena to socially express aggression. The high school mean girl who systematically undermines her "friends" in order to raise her own social profile is hiding her aggression behind a socially acceptable code of behaviour.

And yes, there are a few people who cross the line. There are a few people who display inappropriate aggression, but they're not generally displaying inappropriate levels of aggression so much as they're expressing it in the wrong way, and for whatever reason, men seem to do this far more often than women in most cases.

The point is, how we express aggression is very much a product of our environment. Sure, if you're only looking for physical violence, you're going to come to the conclusion that men are more aggressive than women, but if we start to look at aggression as a thing which can be expressed in a whole range of ways, it becomes much more complicated and we definitely start to see a lot more aggression coming from women.

The issue for me here is not "why are men more aggressive than women". We don't have a whole lot of evidence than they are. The real question is "why are men so much more likely express aggression through physical violence", and the answer, I believe, must surely lie to an extent in the social acceptance of male violence as a healthy and normal response, or the "boys will be boys" effect. If we treated violence in boys as pathologically as we do in girls, then it's likely that boys would learn to express aggression differently..

It's not that easy, however. For whatever reason, even wherein men are deeply concerned about the negative consequences of their own sex role (and one day, I'm going to explain why I hate that term), they are very rarely willing to make any commitment towards "unlearning" their own attitudes towards violence. We've seen examples in this very thread of the avoidance of violence being decried as "weak", "passive" and "childlike", words which have all been applied at one time or another in arguments about the congenital inferiority of women.

Perhaps this is why it's easier to project all the problems of being male onto something as abstract as a "role", or worse onto the destructive, hidden influence of women and their less recognizable forms of aggression. The sad fact is, however, that men are not violent to defend themselves from women. Men are not violent to defend themselves from the responsibilities of being a "real man". Men are violent because it is still rewarding to be violent, and because rejecting violence, admitting that you yourself were vulnerable to it, would have serious implications for how you were socially gendered. Specifically, you would be "feminized", equivalent to female, with all the harmful associations that carries.

In a gender-equal society, being feminized would not be a bad thing. In our society, it is.

By your logic in a gender-equal being masculine is bad thing. While being feminized is not. Then how is that gender equal? This here is my main issue with feminism. Which from your other posts, I know you are a feminist. It claims to be about equality but then says being masculine is bad, being feminized is good. That is not equality.

Equality is, looking both genders seeing the flaws in both and asking BOTH genders to works towards solving them.

chaosord:By your logic in a gender-equal being masculine is bad thing. While being feminized is not. Then how is that gender equal?

No.

Masculinity is not "maleness", the relationship between masculinity and maleness is not essential. Masculinity is the system of social ideals and expectations related to maleness, it is not maleness in and of itself.

If I was saying that male violence stemmed from some intrinsic factor of maleness, then I would by definition be rebuking the idea of gender equality. If this were the case, and bear in mind that very few "feminists" believe this while most anti-feminists do, then the only logical outcome would be that we abandon any notion of living in a gender-equal society and simply accept that we must take measures to control men and limit the social harm they cause. Perhaps through direct legal or medical intervention. I'm sure I don't need to spell out that this would not be a good thing for men. Fortunately, there is no evidence to the effect that we live in such a world and I will devote no further time to this ridiculous hypothesis.

What I am saying is that most of the violence which occurs within our society is bad, and the relationship between masculinity and violence is incredibly harmful to our society, not least to men. On a more pragmatic level, men suffer the overwhelming majority of this male-perpetrated violence. They are hospitalized and murdered in tremendous numbers. Men are also harmed by the association with violence. They must confront the fear of women, they are heavily controlled around children and other vulnerable people, and considered to be a higher risk. I mentioned the possibility of men being treated pathologically, but in some ways we already are. It's not so far from the truth.

Now. I'm a man, and I don't consider my sense of self-worth to be contingent on my capacity for violence or imperviousness to violence. I have been a victim of violence, and I apply that word to myself very deliberately. I've been in situations where I couldn't defend myself, and I couldn't just shrug it off and "man up". I accept that it hurt me, and not just physically. It made me accept that I am as vulnerable in many ways as any woman you could name, and far more so than many I could name. I'm a weak person, and not just physically. Being born with a penis didn't magically correct that, neither do I believe it does for anyone.

To you, it might seem that my saying this makes me less "masculine", it implies I have lost something which you believe we should all defend to the death because otherwise it's not fair to men. To you, and to certain elements of society, I might appear "feminized". I disagree, I don't think violence "defines" men any more than it defines me, and the more I look around me the more I see examples of men who have built their masculinities away from violence, men whose self-worth is not in any way contingent on how many guys they could beat up or how many people they could hurt or humiliate, but on their ability to nurture and care for children, to be worthy of equitable love and desire by women (or men), to create something. You can write me off as a sissy all you want, but if you're still determined to defend violence as if it's something men need in order to be "real men", then on a personal level I pity you. I do so because of all the experiences, all the wonderful ways of being and valuing who you are which you've cut yourself off from on the bizarre presumption that only women should be able to be caring, or nurturing, or desirable, or emotionally expressive, or to live without the threat of violence.

Being male is broader than you can imagine. Being masculine has the capacity to be just as broad. The only thing holding it back is you.

By your logic in a gender-equal being masculine is bad thing. While being feminized is not. Then how is that gender equal? This here is my main issue with feminism. Which from your other posts, I know you are a feminist. It claims to be about equality but then says being masculine is bad, being feminized is good. That is not equality.

Equality is, looking both genders seeing the flaws in both and asking BOTH genders to works towards solving them.

That's not what he is saying. Evil is saying that a specific subset of masculine traits (willingness to use violence) has received a negative connotation, but men are still, as a whole, unwilling to "unlearn" or get rid of this particular trait. In part because the opposite trait (hesitance to use violence) is considered feminine and thus embracing it would constitute a loss of social face for many men. If anything, Evil is suggesting that it is less rewarding, or downright punishing, to be regarded as feminine if you are a man.

Read his argument again, because it really is as good a discussion of the expression of gender roles as you are likely to find on these boards, instead of making strawmans about feminists that you can then violently savage.

We seem to have taken it as self-evident that men are more aggressive than women. Why?

Bear in mind, aggression is not violence. In fact, any behaviour with the intention of either harming or putting down someone else or asserting one's own social superiority can be classed as aggression.

There are people out there who constantly attack, belittle and hurt other people and yet who would never consider using physical violence against them, because the aggressive impulse can be satisfied in more socially acceptable ways. In fact, that's the key point here. How people express aggression is motivated very much by what they consider acceptable. A traditional working class guy who sees nothing wrong with getting into the odd fist fight with those who ask for it is expressing aggression in a socially acceptable fashion. The "office psychopath" who ruthlessly lords it over his or her subordinates in the working environment has found the perfect arena to socially express aggression. The high school mean girl who systematically undermines her "friends" in order to raise her own social profile is hiding her aggression behind a socially acceptable code of behaviour.

And yes, there are a few people who cross the line. There are a few people who display inappropriate aggression, but they're not generally displaying inappropriate levels of aggression so much as they're expressing it in the wrong way, and for whatever reason, men seem to do this far more often than women in most cases.

The point is, how we express aggression is very much a product of our environment. Sure, if you're only looking for physical violence, you're going to come to the conclusion that men are more aggressive than women, but if we start to look at aggression as a thing which can be expressed in a whole range of ways, it becomes much more complicated and we definitely start to see a lot more aggression coming from women.

The issue for me here is not "why are men more aggressive than women". We don't have a whole lot of evidence than they are. The real question is "why are men so much more likely express aggression through physical violence", and the answer, I believe, must surely lie to an extent in the social acceptance of male violence as a healthy and normal response, or the "boys will be boys" effect. If we treated violence in boys as pathologically as we do in girls, then it's likely that boys would learn to express aggression differently..

It's not that easy, however. For whatever reason, even wherein men are deeply concerned about the negative consequences of their own sex role (and one day, I'm going to explain why I hate that term), they are very rarely willing to make any commitment towards "unlearning" their own attitudes towards violence. We've seen examples in this very thread of the avoidance of violence being decried as "weak", "passive" and "childlike", words which have all been applied at one time or another in arguments about the congenital inferiority of women.

Perhaps this is why it's easier to project all the problems of being male onto something as abstract as a "role", or worse onto the destructive, hidden influence of women and their less recognizable forms of aggression. The sad fact is, however, that men are not violent to defend themselves from women. Men are not violent to defend themselves from the responsibilities of being a "real man". Men are violent because it is still rewarding to be violent, and because rejecting violence, admitting that you yourself were vulnerable to it, would have serious implications for how you were socially gendered. Specifically, you would be "feminized", equivalent to female, with all the harmful associations that carries.

In a gender-equal society, being feminized would not be a bad thing. In our society, it is.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. In much of the world, and not even just limited to western society, the way men view women, and associate activities with being " feminine" as being a bad thing, like because women did it some how men now cannot, because they somehow " contaminated " the activity with their female touch is part of the dysfunction here. When women do what most consider to be male dominated activities, they are exhalted by other women, considered pioneers or role models, but when men do what is considered female dominated activites, they are often put down and ridiculed and considered " less of a man" by other men for doing so. We have to first address how men judge/ view other men here, because I see that peer pressure as a big part of the problem that prevents these issues from being resolved. Those " roles" are constructed by society, and are a part of the problem here. Rather than having "human roles" they have separated activites and attached negativity to what should be considered positive activities regardless of gender. I think that makes it much more difficult on men, especially fathers to better prepare them for what is in store when they get there. Women often trained as a child for parenthood, but many men lacked that training due to the lack of tools made available to them by the social conditioning of their " gender role".

I think in this day and time, males are being even less prepared for the "real world" due to societies expectations of them, and their lack of training, experience for when they get there than even years past due to less interaction that comes with the introduction of electronic entertainment. Boys are now less likely now to be exposed to child reearing and nurturing activities because they are more involved with their phones/ games/ videos/ gadgets than in years past and are even less likely to be involved with those activties as a child creating an even larger gap in these activities, when we need to be closing the gap, not widening it.

This made me quit the thread, because it pissed me off and made me sick.

Someone manipulating someone elses emotions and thoughts in order to gain an advantage over them in some way is abuse. Period. And if they know that threatening to leave someone if they don't do X, they know the levers to pull to manipulate someone into doing something they'd rather not, then it's emotional abuse.

Believe it or not, there are people out there who really want to feel loved, and I'm not talking about sex, I'm talking about an emotional desire to feel worth and needed by another person. They can take physical abuse quite in stride, but attack them emotionally and they're crippled. Shit, country music is built on this sort of thing.

"Six foot six he stood on the ground, weighed two hundred and twenty five pounds; but I saw that giant of a man bought down to his knees by love."

But according to you, nope; nope, manipulating peoples emotions isn't abuse at all, it's all about sex and it must just be people whining because they can't get laid or something. Yeah, it's a self-esteem issue that tends to lead to this kind of abuse, but that doesn't make it 'not abuse' because no one threw a punch.

It's unbelievably disgusting to me, your attitude.

Fair dues. I think the idea of feeling like someone else is obliged to be in love with you and stay with you is disgusting.

If for no other reason than because I'm pretty sure that was the mentality of Kathy Bates' character in Misery.

chaosord:By your logic in a gender-equal being masculine is bad thing. While being feminized is not. Then how is that gender equal?

No.

Masculinity is not "maleness", the relationship between masculinity and maleness is not essential. Masculinity is the system of social ideals and expectations related to maleness, it is not maleness in and of itself.

If I was saying that male violence stemmed from some intrinsic factor of maleness, then I would by definition be rebuking the idea of gender equality. If this were the case, and bear in mind that very few "feminists" believe this while most anti-feminists do, then the only logical outcome would be that we abandon any notion of living in a gender-equal society and simply accept that we must take measures to control men and limit the social harm they cause. Perhaps through direct legal or medical intervention. I'm sure I don't need to spell out that this would not be a good thing for men. Fortunately, there is no evidence to the effect that we live in such a world and I will devote no further time to this ridiculous hypothesis.

What I am saying is that most of the violence which occurs within our society is bad, and the relationship between masculinity and violence is incredibly harmful to our society, not least to men. On a more pragmatic level, men suffer the overwhelming majority of this male-perpetrated violence. They are hospitalized and murdered in tremendous numbers. Men are also harmed by the association with violence. They must confront the fear of women, they are heavily controlled around children and other vulnerable people, and considered to be a higher risk. I mentioned the possibility of men being treated pathologically, but in some ways we already are. It's not so far from the truth.

Now. I'm a man, and I don't consider my sense of self-worth to be contingent on my capacity for violence or imperviousness to violence. I have been a victim of violence, and I apply that word to myself very deliberately. I've been in situations where I couldn't defend myself, and I couldn't just shrug it off and "man up". I accept that it hurt me, and not just physically. It made me accept that I am as vulnerable in many ways as any woman you could name, and far more so than many I could name. I'm a weak person, and not just physically. Being born with a penis didn't magically correct that, neither do I believe it does for anyone.

To you, it might seem that my saying this makes me less "masculine", it implies I have lost something which you believe we should all defend to the death because otherwise it's not fair to men. To you, and to certain elements of society, I might appear "feminized". I disagree, I don't think violence "defines" men any more than it defines me, and the more I look around me the more I see examples of men who have built their masculinities away from violence, men whose self-worth is not in any way contingent on how many guys they could beat up or how many people they could hurt or humiliate, but on their ability to nurture and care for children, to be worthy of equitable love and desire by women (or men), to create something. You can write me off as a sissy all you want, but if you're still determined to defend violence as if it's something men need in order to be "real men", then on a personal level I pity you. I do so because of all the experiences, all the wonderful ways of being and valuing who you are which you've cut yourself off from on the bizarre presumption that only women should be able to be caring, or nurturing, or desirable, or emotionally expressive, or to live without the threat of violence.

Being male is broader than you can imagine. Being masculine has the capacity to be just as broad. The only thing holding it back is you.

VAWA, primary aggressor laws (wherein the larger of the two in a DV case is arrested and taken away regardless of who is attacking who, the same laws which made it so I was denied my basic human right to seek justice after a female room-mate came after me with a hammer. The cop told me that it would end badly for me (male 6ft. 1in., the woman 5ft something.) and refused to let me press charges. So I got to spend the next 2 month homeless.) The lowering of the standard of evidence for rape cases, when its a man accused of raping a woman. All of this because, "those poor women need help from those evil violent men."

You fail to understand what it means to be masculine. Being masculine means being ready and able to do what is needed. To commit to doing the greater violence needed to stop violence, to go and risk life and limb for the benefit of others. After all a rapist doesn't stop because you ask, a mass murder doesn't stop because you point out the evil of their actions. They stop because someone stops them. Violence in and of its self is not a bad thing. It is how it is used. After all that buffalo isn't going hunt itself.

And if you want men to stop valuing the ability to do violence, make women stop fucking men who have that trait.

ps. I owe you an apology. I mistook you for another poster with a thecat SN. My bad, apologies to the both you. However you did parrot feminist talking points and I am terrible with names. Moving on, I pity you. I can laugh, cry, show weakness, and feel that experience you talk about. But you can't seem to understand the world you live in.

chaosord:primary aggressor laws (wherein the larger of the two in a DV case is arrested and taken away regardless of who is attacking who, the same laws which made it so I was denied my basic human right to seek justice after a female room-mate came after me with a hammer. The cop told me that it would end badly for me (male 6ft. 1in., the woman 5ft something.) and refused to let me press charges. So I got to spend the next 2 month homeless.)

That's not how the "primary aggressor" works.

The "primary aggressor" enables police to make a snap decision about which party they feel is likely to be primarily responsible in cases of suspected abuse in which both parties attest violence. The relative height and weight of the parties and the relative potential to harm each other is simply one part of that equation.

It may be that the police did not follow the law correctly in your case. I don't know. You've given no context to this at all so it's unclear what their decision was based on. It may also be that they simply made a mistake, which is going to happen. "Primary aggressor" is not a judicial judgement, it's a tool used by police often under difficult circumstances.

As many rape victims have discovered, you do not have the "human right" to press charges. You have the human right to have the police give your case the attention it deserves, but if they feel there's no point going forward to trial then they are perfectly within their rights to refuse you. If you feel their decision making in this case or their application of the law was flawed, then there will be ways you can make a complaint.

As with the VAWA, however, the law is completely gender neutral.

chaosord:The lowering of the standard of evidence for rape cases, when its a man accused of raping a woman.

Compared to what? Rape trials in the 1970s?

I've explained this many times on many threads. There is absolutely no evidence that you're any more likely to be wrongfully convicted for rape than for any other crime, except relative to older procedures for rape trials where you simply couldn't be convicted at all barring exceptional circumstances.

chaosord:Being masculine means being ready and able to do what is needed. To commit to doing the greater violence needed to stop violence, to go and risk life and limb for the benefit of others.

I would argue that a person whose self-worth is determined by their capacity for violence is incredibly poorly equipped to do that. I've used violence to escape or pre-empt violence against myself, but I recognize the basic life-saving reality that it's better to have a locked door between me and the person trying to hurt me than my fist, that the only real purpose of "self-defence" should be to escape, not to "prove yourself" or humiliate your attacker by demonstrating your superior manliness.

I'm typing this right now with the left side of my face all swollen to shit because my younger brother (about your size, unemployed, alcoholic) doesn't like being ignored. This has been the story of my life whenever I've been at home over the last decade or so.

Now, he'd agree with everything you said. In fact, when he's friendly-drunk he talks endlessly about how he'd protect me with his life if anyone tried to hurt me, and he believes it. He believes every second of it. He takes so much pride in these endless stories about how he'd protect "his" family or "his" friends, or "his" women or "his" property (the issue being of course that he treats all these things like property, and his presumption that they couldn't possibly defend themselves without him is simply a way to make himself feel more important).

My brother is not a bad person, you'd probably meet him and get on really well, and I don't say that as an insult to you. But he's incredibly insecure. He's terrified of not being wanted, needed or valued, and since his masculinity affords him no way of expressing that insecurity, he beats other people down, mentally and physically, to silence the fear of inferiority. He abuses women to lower their self esteem because he is terrified they aren't going to want him otherwise. The worst part is that to him this never ceases to be acceptable. Other people are always "making a big deal" or provoking him.

My brother is an abusive bastard. He probably always will be. But in his own mind he is only ever defending himself. He is only ever "doing what is necessary". He is the logical extension of your deep-masculine philosophy in the mind of someone who is not mentally or emotionally equipped to live up to your impossibly high standard of being the stoic guy with nothing to prove.

Because when we're honest with ourselves, it is an impossibly high standard.

chaosord:And if you want men to stop valuing the ability to do violence, make women stop fucking men who have that trait.

There's a certain irony here, because everything I have seen indicates that, certainly once you get out of high school, a huge number have. I see countless men who probably adhere to a model of masculinity you'd find quite acceptable endlessly bemoaning the fact that the women they want don't understand them or don't take them seriously or are interested in guys who (they don't feel) measure up to their masculinity. I can't read it now as anything other than immaturity, guys who maybe got laid a fair bit in their teens through adopting a forceful or aggressive with women and are now terribly surprised that, in the adult world where a significant number of women have gone through abusive partners and vowed "never again" it suddenly doesn't work as well as it used to.

Personally, I have to say that women have never punished me for failing to be sufficiently violent. In fact, my experience is that the vast majority of my generation of women desperately wish their partners could be more openly caring, nurturing and understanding. Women do not just magically "respond" to force and aggression any more than men do.

I suspect I know what you mean, and if I'm correct then you didn't. That's me.

However, I don't consider myself to be a feminist. I'm broadly pro-feminist, so I will happily argue in favour of some form of "feminism" against the alternatives, but I don't believe being gender critical is enough to qualify me as a feminist. Explaining why would require me to delve a little too deeply into Gender Trouble for casual forum reading.

What I intensely dislike is watching people who don't understand a thing about feminism trying to talk about it.

chaosord:I can laugh, cry, show weakness, and feel that experience you talk about. But you can't seem to understand the world you live in.

If you believe that your worth in life is defined by your ability to protect others or be strong for others, then not only have you asserted your strength over those people you claim to "protect", but you've also created a situation in which being weak makes you worthless.

When I say "showing weakness", I don't mean crying in some socially acceptable arena like after a breakup. I mean acknowledging that it isn't humiliating or degrading to be a "stupid sheep incapable of self preservation", it's actually the reality most of us live under.

chaosord:primary aggressor laws (wherein the larger of the two in a DV case is arrested and taken away regardless of who is attacking who, the same laws which made it so I was denied my basic human right to seek justice after a female room-mate came after me with a hammer. The cop told me that it would end badly for me (male 6ft. 1in., the woman 5ft something.) and refused to let me press charges. So I got to spend the next 2 month homeless.)

That's not how the "primary aggressor" works.

The "primary aggressor" enables police to make a snap decision about which party they feel is likely to be primarily responsible in cases of suspected abuse in which both parties attest violence. The relative height and weight of the parties and the relative potential to harm each other is simply one part of that equation.

It may be that the police did not follow the law correctly in your case. I don't know. You've given no context to this at all so it's unclear what their decision was based on. It may also be that they simply made a mistake, which is going to happen. "Primary aggressor" is not a judicial judgement, it's a tool used by police often under difficult circumstances.

As many rape victims have discovered, you do not have the "human right" to press charges. You have the human right to have the police give your case the attention it deserves, but if they feel there's no point going forward to trial then they are perfectly within their rights to refuse you. If you feel their decision making in this case or their application of the law was flawed, then there will be ways you can make a complaint.

As with the VAWA, however, the law is completely gender neutral.

Violence Against WOMEN Act, gender neutral? We're done. Sorry but if you fail to see how that is not gender neutral, then there is no point in talking to you.

I guess I didn't make this clear. Gender neutral in application. Not "gender neutral language", which is a whole different (and sillier) issue. You can say "women" in a piece of legislation.

If this act did not apply in a gender neutral fashion, it would be declared unconstitutional. You know this, as does anyone with a brain and an ounce of knowledge about modern politics, so I don't know why we're still trying to make the case that the VAWA is discriminatory. Nothing in it can apply differently to men and women, any advantage or protection it gives women is also accessible to men in the same situation.

"Violence Against Women" is a specific political term. It refers to all the forms of violence predominantly suffered by women. You couldn't have called this act the "Sexual Violence Act" or the "Domestic Violence Act" because it covers a whole range of different types of violent crime. VAWA is concise and covers the objective of the act, which is to tackle those forms of violence predominantly experienced by women. That doesn't change the fact that the laws therein also apply to men to an entirely equal degree.

Yes, it's lazy wording which is easily misinterpreted, and it cuts very close to the reasons why I won't call myself a feminist. But to accuse it of not being gender neutral or imply its existence is somehow discriminatory because the title has "women" in it is incredibly short sighted and does nothing for your position except paint you as massively reactionary.

If you have no evidence for your own discrimination beyond the fact that the title of a particular act which in actuality applies to you doesn't specifically mention that it applies to you, then that tells me everything I need to know about how discriminated against you actually are.

evilthecat:I guess I didn't make this clear. Gender neutral in application. Not "gender neutral language", which is a whole different (and sillier) issue. You can say "women" in a piece of legislation.

If this act did not apply in a gender neutral fashion, it would be declared unconstitutional. You know this, as does anyone with a brain and an ounce of knowledge about modern politics, so I don't know why we're still trying to make the case that the VAWA is discriminatory. Nothing in it can apply differently to men and women, any advantage or protection it gives women is also accessible to men in the same situation.

"Violence Against Women" is a specific political term. It refers to all the forms of violence predominantly suffered by women. You couldn't have called this act the "Sexual Violence Act" or the "Domestic Violence Act" because it covers a whole range of different types of violent crime. VAWA is concise and covers the objective of the act, which is to tackle those forms of violence predominantly experienced by women. That doesn't change the fact that the laws therein also apply to men to an entirely equal degree.

Yes, it's lazy wording which is easily misinterpreted, and it cuts very close to the reasons why I won't call myself a feminist. But to accuse it of not being gender neutral or imply its existence is somehow discriminatory because the title has "women" in it is incredibly short sighted and does nothing for your position except paint you as massively reactionary.

If you have no evidence for your own discrimination beyond the fact that the title of a particular act which in actuality applies to you doesn't specifically mention that it applies to you, then that tells me everything I need to know about how discriminated against you actually are.

A few things:

Technically, VAWA is dead as a doornail at the moment due to congressional inaction. It was up for renewal and was not renewed by the House. It will almost certainly make a comeback with only slight modification, since the reason the House failed to pass it was entirely about the additions regarding immigrants on marriage visas (a part I agree with, at least in part, though perhaps not the specifics). Personally, I can only hope it's comeback resembles the modifications to the legislation suggested by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, what they call the PVRA, or Partner Violence Reduction Act.

For all you say about gendered language being a silly complaint, even in cases where it doesn't directly impact what the law itself can be said to cover (such as specifically looking to mandate coverage of "contraceptive drugs or procedures for women" and what happens when RISUG [or some similar drug or procedure] gets FDA approval -- hint: it isn't "contraceptive drugs or procedures for women" specifically because it's a male contraceptive technology), there's the secondary effect that in the long run is probably more important regarding something like VAWA -- it colors the execution of the law. It effects how the policies that are used to enforce the law are written, how those policies are implemented, and how those whose job is to enforce the law are trained. Police training for domestic violence calls that's based on the Duluth model and primary aggressor policies often boils down to "if you get a domestic violence call, you are required to arrest someone. If there is any doubt about who the primary aggressor is, arrest the male if one is involved", especially in more rural areas with their smaller training budgets.

As far as direct discrimination in VAWA, VAWA grant guidelines literally require any program receiving any funding must provide services to women. It also contains language barring discrimination along any of the usual lines, and placing a specific exception to that allowing discrimination with respect to actual or perceived gender. If you can explicitly discriminate with respect to gender, but you specifically must serve women, who exactly are you discriminating against, again (yes, trans folk too, I'm not forgetting about them]? That's why someone looking to start a shelter for male victims (or for children of female perpetrators) has extra difficulties -- it has to wholly be funded by donation (with donations being harder to come up with in no small part because we've defined it in the public eye as something that cannot happen to men because it's "violence against women") or other private funding, because it can't even attempt to get a VAWA grant unless it serves women.